The Delhi High Court holds that a foreign national cannot claim a constitutional or a vested right to be appointed a Guardian of a disabled person.

The Delhi High Court rejected the Petition of a father of a person suffering from severe mental retardation and certified to be suffering from a 90% disability, who assailed the validity of Rule 17(1)(iii)(a) of the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Rules, 20001 as well as Regulation 12(1)(i) of the Board of the Trust Regulations, 20012 which restrict the appointment of a guardian to a person who is not an Indian citizen.

The High Court observed that:

"The Court also finds itself unable to sustain the contention addressed on behalf of the petitioner that the Rules and the Regulations conflict with Section 14 for the following additional reasons. It becomes pertinent to observe that the mere usage of the word's "parent", "relative" or "any person" in Section 14 does not convince this Court to come to the conclusion that a non-citizen could also claim a right to be appointed as a guardian of a person with disability."

"It, in any case, finds itself unable to countenance Articles 14 or 21 as being the source or the repository of a claim that may be raised in that regard. Undisputedly, the petitioner, by virtue of being an American citizen, cannot claim the protection of Part III rights to the same extent as may stand conferred on a citizen. This in light of the limited rights that he can possibly claim under Part III of the Constitution," the bench said.

The Court however held that:

"The Court leaves it open to the petitioner to nominate an Indian citizen who may be appointed as the statutory guardian of the son with special needs. Any nomination that may be made in this respect shall be duly examined and considered by the Local Level Committee. The statutory guardian, when appointed, shall together with the petitioner be obliged to attend to the welfare and upbringing of the person concerned," it said.

"The statutory guardian as well as the petitioner shall be jointly responsible to care for and look after the welfare of the person with disabilities," it said.

"No parent, relative or any person nominated by them can, thus, claim an indefeasible right to be appointed as a guardian or be freed of the obligation of being otherwise qualified in terms of the statutory regime which prevails," the court said.

Sunil Podar Vs. the National Trust for Welfare of Person with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities and Anr.